HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-20-2014 Planning and Zoning CommissionPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, March 20, 2014 - 7:00 PM
Formal Meeting
Iowa City City Hall
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
AGENDA:
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
D. Zoning Code Items:
1 . Discussion of amendments to Title 14, Zoning, Chapter 5 bite Development Standards,
Article B, Sign Regulations to: 1) change the standards for projecting signs and to allow
them in all commercial zones, 2) to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to
clarify the size provisions and 3) to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of
permanent window signs in required storefront windows.
2. Discussion of Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Code and proposed regulation of
noise levels.
E. Comprehensive Plan item
Discussion of amending the Comprehensive Plan, Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan, to include a section on affordable housing.
F. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 3 & February 20, 2014
G. Other
H. Adjournment
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 3 1 April 17 1 'May 1/ May 15
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 14, 2014
To: Planning & zoning Commission
From: Jann Ream
Re: Sign Ordinance Amendments
Introduction:
In the past few years, applications for sign permits have been submitted to Housing and
Inspection Services that were denied because the proposed signs either were not allowed or did
not meet the size limitations delineated in the ordinance. The sign proposals that were denied
were for "projecting" signs that were larger than currently allowed and for "canopy roof signs in
a CC-2 zone (only allowed in CB zones). Most of the proposed signs seemed reasonable and
their denial was difficult to support within the rationale of the ordinance. Conversely, staff has
observed a growing problem with temporary posters and signs and permanently affixed window
films blocking views into required storefront windows downtown.
In conjunction with reviewing these sign types, Staff realized that there are other sign ordinance
issues, especially downtown, that warrant further review and discussion. These include portable
signs and facia signs. Since City Council and the City Manager's office are currently working
with consultants towards a new design aesthetic in the downtown area and City Plaza, changes
to those sign types will be presented at a later date.
History/Background:
Canoav Roof Sions:
This type of sign is attached to the roof of a canopy, marquee or similar building projection (see
illustration, pg 4). Until 2001, this type of sign was considered a simple roof sign which is not
permitted by the Iowa City sign ordinance. In 2001, a downtown business owner submitted a
sign application for internally illuminated letters to be mounted on top of a canopy in front of his
new restaurant. He felt that because the sign was well below the level of the roof, it should not
be considered a roof sign and asked that the ordinance be amended to allow signs attached to
top of a canopy. Staff felt this was a reasonable request and wrote an amendment to the sign
code that created standards for this type of sign. At that time, the amendment limited these
signs to the CB zones only.
Promecting Signs:
This type of sign is any sign extending more than 1ft out from the building wall on which it
mounted (see illustration, pg 4). These signs are mounted perpendicular to the wall. From the
early 1970's to 1997, projecting signs were not permitted because of issues with older projecting
signs over City sidewalks that were not being adequately maintained (creating a hazard) and
because of the visual clutter they created by possibly blocking the view of neighboring business
signs. Business owners were installing larger and brighter projecting signs in order to
1. overshadow" adjacent signs and businesses. In 1997 however, the ordinance was amended to
March 14, 2014
Page 2
once again allow projecting signs but only in the CB-5 and CB-10 zones and with very limited
parameters. The signs were not allowed to be larger than 6sf, could not be illuminated and
approval from Design Review was required.
Si-qns in Windows:
Historically, "Signs in Windows" have been distinguished trom "Window Signs" in that "Window
Signs" are permanently installed signs that require a permit and whose size is regulated (25% of
the window). "Signs in Windows" are temporary signs (like posters) which do not require a
permit and have not been regulated. Unfortunately, this has resulted in certain businesses,
completely filling their storefront windows with advertising posters. While this is not necessarily
a problem in more general commercial districts (i.e. a grocery store in a CC-2 zone), it has
become an issue in the Central Business districts. Because of the pedestrian oriented nature of
the Central Business zones, storefront windows play a greater role in creating a positive
interaction between people and businesses. Also, because of new printing technologies,
permanently affixed window films have become more prominent. While these don't always
contain an apparent advertising message, they do still entirely block the view into a storefront
and should be addressed.
Discussion of Solutions:
Canopy Roof Signs: Canopy roof signs should be allowed in all of the City's commercial zones.
Typically, this type of signage has a much better look than the usual illuminated box with applied
vinyl letters and, by necessity, is a better designed sign. Canopy roof signs should be allowed in
all of the City's commercial zones. Newer commercial zones like Olde Towne Village and
commercial areas designated for redevelopment like Towncrest would especially benefit from
the addition of this sign type. These areas are meant to be more pedestrian friendly (like the
downtown) and canopy roof signs work into the site development standards of those area very
well. This type of sign is limited to canopies; therefore, they will not result in a return to roof
signs which have been eliminated.
Proiecting Signs: Currently, projecting signs are only allowed in CB-5 & CB-10 zones, are
limited to 6sf per side, must be mounted between 8ft and 12ft above grade, cannot extend more
than 5ft from the building, cannot be illuminated and require approval from the Staff Design
Review Committee. At present, there are only three projecting signs in the downtown area. The
limitations on projecting signs seem to be preventing their use and restricting creative design.
Well -designed and slightly larger projecting signs could greatly benefit business owners and
help provide a more vibrant and interesting pedestrian oriented streetscape without becoming
obtrusive or unfair to adjacent businesses. Because projecting signs can have a substantial
impact on the character of the downtown area, Design Review approval is appropriate.
However, by allowing a larger square footage, a greater mounting range (including allowing
some specific uses to mount signs on a second story wall) and illumination (which we can
control by requiring that the lighting be downcast, shielded or limiting lumens), we can achieve
more creative designs and a better variety of signs which may help to create a more interesting
and attractive downtown. While this proposal expands the size and height standards for
projecting signs, constraints on the number and placement of these signs have been added so
that the "overshadowing" problem of the past does not occur again.
Additionally, using this same rationale, Staff is proposing that projecting signs be permitted in all
commercial zones. The size is still limited and Design Review ensures that the sign will be
appropriate and compatible to the commercial neighborhood.
March 14, 2014
Page 3
Signs in Windows- Because of the pedestrian oriented nature of the Central Business zones
((;B-2, CB-5 and CB-10), storefront windows play a greater role in creating a positive interaction
between people and businesses. For this reason, storefront windows are actually required in the
Central Business zones (CBIO, CB-5, CB-2). When the entire storefront window is blocked by
advertising posters, it creates a visual wall that prevents that interaction between the public and
the business and creates an unfriendly and disconnected atmosphere. Staff is proposing that
this type of temporary sign be regulated in order to ensure that views through required storefront
windows are not blocked. Also, by adding a placement provision for permanent window signs in
required storefronts, the permanently affixed window films that have become so prominent in
the last few years can be addressed and regulated appropriately.
Recommendation:
Amend the sign ordinance to allow canopy roof signs in all commercial zones and to clarify the
size provisions as attached.
Amend the sign ordinance to change the standards for projecting signs and to allow them in all
commercial zones as attached.
Amend the sign ordinance to regulate temporary window signs and the placement of permanent
window signs in required storefront windows as attached.
March 11, 2014
Page 4
CANOPY RbOF SIGN: A building sign attached to or lncorpo�ateicl with
the roof of a canopy, marquee, or any other.
similar building projection.
CANOPY SIGN: A building sign attached to or In any way
incorporated with the -face or underside of a
canopy, marquee or any other similar building
'projection and which does not extend beyond
the projection by more than six Inches (W).
PROJECTING SIGN: A building sign extending more than one foot
(V) out from the wall of the building on which It
is mounted. I .
Table 513-2: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CO-1, CN-1, and MU Zones
Permilted
signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum
Height
Provisions
Facie Signs
15% allowance per sign wall
Top of first
story, except as
allowed for
parapet signs
Parapet signs are allowed. but only on one-story buildings.
Canopy Ro
Narrow Storefronts: 15 sq. ft.
Too of first story
Up to one canopy roof sign is allowed oer storefront.
The bottom edge of the sign must be located no more
than 4 inches above the canopy.
For Narrow Storefronts:
9 Maximum height of copy: 13"
- Maximum thickness: 6'
For Medium Storefronts:
e —Maximum height of copy: 20"
9 Maximum thickness: 8'
For Wide storefronts:
- Maximum height of copy: 30'
Maximum thickness: 10"
Medium Storefronts: 25 sq. ft.
Wide Storefronts: 35 sq. ft.
(See definition of Storefront in
14:9AI
Canopy Signs
9 12 sq. ft. per sign, except
as set forth in provisions
Top offirst
-edqe
story canopy
• Each storefront is allowed up to a total of three (3)
signs f in the following sign types provided there is a
minimum of 20 ft. between Proiecting
signs and
under -mounted canopy signs along
any frontaue,
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Pro'ecting signs.
• Signs mounted under a canopy may not proiect
beyond the outer edge of the canoov.
. Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may not
proiect beyond the face of the canopy by more than 6
inches and must not extend above or below the top
and bottom edges of the canopy,
• The size of a canopy sign may be increased up to 18
sq. ft. (may be double fared for a total area of 36 sq.
ft.) if the sign and storefront meet the following
criteda: The floor to ceiling height of the ground level
floor is a minimum at 18 ft., the sign is mounted to the
underside of the canopy and the sign is vertically
RLo �rtloned
Amend Table 5B-3, as follows:
Table SB-3. Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CH-1, CC-2, and CIA Zones
Permitted
Signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Fada signs
15% allowance per sign wall
Up to one canopy roof sign is allowed pe
storefront.
The bottom edge of the sign must be located no
more than 4 inches above the canopy.
Narrow Storefronts: 15 sq. ft.
For Narrow Storefronts:
Medium Storefronts: 25 sq. ft.
9 Maximum height of copy: 13"
Wide Storefronts: 35 sq. ft.
Canopy Roof
Top of first story
- Maximum thickness: 6�
For Medium Storefronts:
Signs
(See definition of Storefront in
9 Maximum height of copy: 20"
o Maximum thickness: 8"
For Wide storefronts:
• Maximum height of copy: 30
• Maximum thickness: 10"
• Each storefront is allowW up to a total of three
(3) signs from the following sign Woes orovided
there is a minimum of 20 ft. between
prdecting signs and under -mounted canopy
signs along any frontage:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Pro ecting
signs.
• Signs mounted under a canopy may not
proiect beyond the outer edge of the canopy.
. Signs mounted on the face of the canopy may
Canopy signs
12 sq. ft. per sign,
except as set forth in
provisions
Top edqe of first story
canopy
not proiect beyond the face of the canopy by
more than 6 inches and must not extend above
or below the top and bottom edges of the
canopy.
• The size of a canopy sign may be increased
uv to 18 sq. ft. (may be double faced for a total
area of 36 sq. ft.) if the sign and storefront
meet the following criteria: The floor to ceiling
height of the ground level floor is a minimum
18 ft., the sign is mounted to the underside of
the canovy and the sign is vertical;
2R211—ioned
Table 58-3; Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CH-1, CC-2, and Cl-I Zones
Permitted
signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Up to 2 sq. ft. per lineal foot of
lot frontage, not to exceed 125
sq. ft. per sign face. May be
double-faced for a total area of
25 feet, however. in
When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a
250 square feet.
the CH-1 District,
common freestanding or monument sign may be
Additional sign area is allowed
property within 1,000
installed. The maximum area of the common sign
Freestanding
in the CH-1 Zone as follows.
feet of an interstate
may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum
signs
For property within 1,000 feet
highway right of way
individual sign allowed.
of an interstate highway right-
of -way, one of the property's
may have I
freestanding sign with
The number of signs is limited according to
allotted freestanding signs is
a maximum height not
parag raph D.2., above.
allowed up to 250 sq. ft per
to exceed 65 feet.
sign face, which may be
double-faced for a total area of
500 sq. ft.
Maximum width: 10 ft.
When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a
common sign may be installed. The maximum
Up to 2 sq. ft. per lineal foot of
area of the common sign may be 50% larger than
Freestanding,
lot frontage, not to exceed 125
the area of the maximum individual sign allowed.
Wide Base
sq. ft. per sign face.
26 ft.
The number of signs is limited according to
signs
May be double-faced for a
paragraph D.2., above. However, a freestanding,
total of 250 sq. ft.
wide -based sign is only allowed if the lot frontage
is at least 160 feet, and the City Engineer
determines that the location of the sign will not
obstruct the visibility of vehicles entering or exiting
the property.
When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a
Up to 2 sq. ft. per lineal foot of
common monument or freestanding sign may be
Monument
lot frontage, not to exceed 50
installed. The maximum area of the common sign
signs
sq. ft. per sign face. May be
5 ft
may be 50% larger than the area of the maximum
double-faced for a total area of
individual sign allowed.
100 sq. ft,
The number of signs is limited according to
paragraph D.2., above.
Table 5B-3: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CH-11, CC-2, and CIA Zones
Permitted
Signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Storefront
prolecting sign
12 sq. ft.
May be double-faced for a
Top of the 1 story,
unless approved as a
• Each storefront is allowed up to a tota! of three
(3) signs from the following sign types provided
there's a minimum of 20 ft. between
pro4ecting signs and under -mounted camop
signs along any frontage:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Proiecting
slgm
• A pro'ecting sign may not prolect more than 4
T from the building wall.
• The size of a 15t story pro acting sign may be
in reased up to 18 sq. ft (may be double faced
for a total area of 36 sq. ft.) If the sign and
storefront meet the following criteria: The floo
to ceiling height of the ground level floor is a
minimum of 18 ft. and the sign is vertically
proportioned.
• Illumination is not permitted, except as follows:
e External illumination is permitted provided
there are no more than two small so
2. nd story proiecting
sign according to the
lights of no more than 2,000 lumens
shining directly on the sign and provided
total area of 24 sq. ft.
provisions.
they meet the Ught trespass Standards in
Article 14-4G.
. Halo back -lit illumination may be permitted
subiect to approval by Design Review and
to the illumination provision for 2nd Sto
signs delineated below.
• If the sign is for a Hospitality -Oriented Retail
Use or an indoor theater or bowlino alley, th
sign may be placed on the 2nd story facade
a building submect to approval by Design
Review. Illumination for a 2nd story sign will not
be permitted if there are existina residential
uses on the second floor of the buildinq.
• The sign must be affixed to the building so th
the sign is perpendicular to the building wall.
• The sion may not swing or be easily moved by
wind.
• Storefront Prolecting Signs are sub act to
bgggE.�
Masonry Wall
Sign
Up to 1 sq. ft. per lineal foot of
lot frontage, not to exceed 50
sq. ft. per sign,
In addition, the sign may not
exceed 15% of the total area
of the face of the masonry
wall,
1 ft. less than the
height of the masonry
wall, not to exceed 12
feet
One masonry wall sign is allowed, in lieu of a
monument, freestanding, or freestanding wide -
base sign.
Table SEI-3: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CH-11, CC-2, and CI-1 Zones
Permitted
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Signs
- Up to one sign per fagade of the entranceway
arch.
- The sign may not contain changeable copy.
e Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of
the entranceway structure. If an applicant finds
that this standard is too restrictive, they may
For signs located above or
request a Level I review from the Design
across the top of the subject
Review Committee for an alternative design.
archway, the area of the sign
The Design Review Committee will approve,
may not exceed 25% of the
approve with conditions, or deny an application
area delineated by the subject
based on whether the proposed alternative
archway.
design is appropriate to and integrated into the
Entranoeway
For a sign located on the side
20 ft.
overall design of the entranceway. The
Committee will consider such factors as color,
Sign
of the archway, the area of the
materials, size, and proportionality.
sign may not exceed 33% of
e Minimum clearance height is 10 feet for
the surface area of the side of
entranceway signs across driveways and 8
the archway support on which
feet for entranceway signs across walkways.
the sign is located.
- Entranceway signage as specified herein will
(See 14-513-7 Measurement
count as one sign toward the total limit for
Standards)
freestanding, freestanding wide -base signs
and monument signs on a lot or tract.
Entranceway signs are not allowed if the
subject lot or tract already has a monument
sign, freestanding sign, freestanding wide -
based sign, or masonry wall sign located at the
subject entrance.
For shopping centers, up to two identification
banner signs may be affixed to each parking area
light pole, provided that the following conditions
are met:
• The parking area must contain at least 200
parking spaces and be shared by multiple
commercial uses.
• The light poles on which banners are affixed
must be spaced at least 80 feet apart,
Identification
Each banner can be no more than 3 ft. wide
Banners
18 sq. ft. per banner
20 ft.
and 6 ft.in height.
The banner must be mounted or affixed so
that the bottom edge of the sign is at least 10
feet above grade and the top edge of the
sign is no higher than 20 feet above grade.
The banner signs must be consistent in
appearance and size,
The permit for the banner sign shall be valid for no
more than one (1) year. However, the permit will
be renewable if the banner signs are in good
condition or are replaced with new banner signs.
• Each storefront is allowed up to a total of
three (3) signs from the following sign types
provided there is a minimum of 20 ft.
between orolecting signs and under -
Awning signs
25% of awning surface
op edge of first story
mounted canopy signs along any'rontage:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Pro'ecting
awning
sigm
• Awning signs are only allowed on first story
maings
If located on or in required storefront windows,
window signs shall be displayed or affixed in a
Window signs
25% of window area
manner that does not block views into the
interior of the storefront.
3 sq. ft, per sign face
Directional
May be c louble-faced for total
signs
a i
Drive -Through
Restaurant
Area: 10 sq. ft.
Only allowed in Zones where drive -through
Menu Signs
facilities are allowed for restaurants.
Time &
25 sq. ft per sign face.
Permitted only in the CC-2 zone.
Temperature
May be double-faced for a
Signs must not project more than 6 ft. into the
Signs
total i
public right-of-way.
Barber Poles
Maximum diameter: 9 inches
I
Maximum length: 3 ft
Identification &
Up to one of these signs is allowed per
Integral signs
2 sq. ft.
building.
No permit is required.
One private flag may be displayed in
Flags
conjunction with public flags.
No permit is required.
Quick Vehicle
Servicing
Allowed for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses.
Signs
No permit is required.
Amend Table 5B-4, as follows:
Table 584 Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB-2, CB-S and CB-10 Zones
PermItted Signs
Madmut" Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Facla signs
15% of sign wall area
• Each storefron! is allowed up to a total of three (3)
signs from the following sign types provided there is
a minimum of 20 ft. between proiecting signs and
under -mounted canopy signs along any frontage:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, nd Pro'ecting signs.
• Si qns mounted under a canopy may not prome
-
beyond the outer edge of the canopy,
Canopy signs
2 s-ft,persi'n
except as set forth in
Top edge of first story
cano
- S!qns mounted on the face of the canopy may n
oroiect beyond the face of the canopy by more than
provisions
6 inches and must not extend above or below the top
—
and bottom edges of the canopy.
• The size of a canopy sign may be increased up to 18
sq. ft. (may be double faced for a total area of 36 so.
ft.) if the sign and storefront meet the following
criteria: The floor to coiling height of the ground level
floor is a minimum of 18 ft., the sign is mounted to
the underside of the canopy and the sign is vertically
pLo �Ioned
Up to one canopy roof sign is allowed per storefront.
Narrow Storefronts:up4o
39ft niength:15sq.ft.
The bottom edge of the sign must be located no more
than 4 inches above the canopy.
For Narrow Storefronts up to 39 ft. length:
Medium Storefronts:
- Maximum height of copy: 13"
Canopy mof signs
bet
19AP: 25 sq. ft.
Top of first story
9 Maximum thickness: 6'
For Medium Storefronts hetAfeen 40 #. and W 0. Ignp:
Wide Storefronts: > 60 ft.
9 Maximum height of copy: 20"
P Fi length: 35 sq. ft.
- Maximum thickness: 8"
(See definition
For Wide storefronts gpoateF than 60 ft. in length:
Storefront in 14-9A)
- Maximum height of copy: 30"
- Maximum thickness: 10"
Only one monument sign is aHowed per lot or tract.
When 2 or more uses are located on a lot, a common
24 sq. ft. per sign face.
monument sign may be installed. A common monument
Monument sign
May be double-faced for a
5ft.
sign may identify up to 4 uses per sign face.
total area of 48 sq. ft.
A monument sign is not allowed if the property has a
freestanding sign, an entranceway sign, or a masonry
wall sign.
Awning signs M 9 the business deAR
only allowed net
have a PFGiGGt7Rg 610R.
. Each storefront is allowed up to a total of three (3)
signs from the following sign types provided there is
Awning signs
25% of awning surface
Top edge of first story
awninq.
a minimum of 20 ft. between prolecting signs and
undermounted canopy signs:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Pro'ecting signs.
. Awning signs are only allowLd on first sto awmings.
DL—
Table SB-4: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB-2, CB�5 and CB-10 Zones
Permitted Signs
—Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
. Up !o one sign per fagade of the entranceway arch.
For signs located above or
9 The sign may not contain changeable copy.
across the top of the
subject archway, the area
@ Sign copy may not extend beyond the edges of the
of the sign may not
entranceway structure. If an applicant finds that this
exceed 25% of the area
standard is too restrictive, they may request a Level I
delineated by the subject
review from the Design Review Committee for an
archway.
aft emabve design. The Design Review Committee
will approve, approve with conditions, or deny an
Entranceway Sign
For a sign located on the
20 ft.
application based on whether the proposed
alternative design is appropriate to and integrated
side of the archway, the
into the overall design of the entranceway. The
area of the sign may not
Committee will consider such factors as color,
exceed 33% of the surface
materials, size, and proportionality.
area of the side of the
. Minimum clearance height is 10 feet for entranceway
archway support on which
the sign is located.
signs across driveways and 8 feet for entranceway
signs across walkways.
(See 14-5B-7
* An entranceway sign is not allowed ff the property
Measurement Standards)
has a masonry wall sign, monument sign, or
freestanding siqn.
. Allowed only in the CB-2 Zone.
. Only one freestanding sign is allowed per lot,
9 Allowed only through approval of a minor
modification. Applicant must provide convincing
Two (2) square feet per
evidence that the existing configuration of the site
Freestanding Sign
lineal foot of lot frontage,
20 ft.
and location of the building or buildings on the site
not to exceed 40 square
make it practically difficult to install a monument sign
feet per sign face
and that other types of allowed signage would not be
readily visible from the street due to the location of
building(s) or other unique site characteristics.
. A freestanding sign is not allowed if the property has
a monument sign, entranceway sign, or masonry wall
sign.
I sq. ft. per lineal foot of
lot frontage, not to exceed
50 sq. ft.
1 ft. less than the
height of the masonry
Only one masonry wall sign is allowed per lot.
Masonry Wall Sign
In addition, the sign may
wall, not to exceed 12
A masonry wall sign is not allowed if the property has a
not exceed 15% of the
feet
monument sign, entranceway sign or freestanding sign.
total area of the face of
e masonry we .
If located on or in reQuired storefront windows. window
Window signs
25% of window area
signs shall be displayed or affixed in a manner that does
not block views into the interior o' the storefront.
Table 58-4: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CB-2, C13-5 and CB-10 Zones
Permitted Signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum HW9_ht_T_
Provisions
Storefront projecting
sign
6 go ft
12 sq. ft.
May be double-faced for a
total area of 4 2 24 sq. it.
424.
Toi) of the Ist story,
Up to is
one pmjeetinq sign allowed PeF Gt9F8#9Rt.
PFojeGtpng if the huRingsR hAA
slgRs ais not permitlRd ari
aWnng 619A, Ganopy sign eF Ganopy Fo9f sign.
• Each storefront is allowed up to a total of three (3)
sions from the following siqn types provided there is
a minimum of 20 ft. between pfolecting siqns and
undermounted canopy siqns alonq any frontage:
Canopy signs, Awning signs, and Protecting signs.
• T49 A eGtlnlslgn may not project more than 4 6
pML-- —
ft, from the building wall.
• The size of a 1 st story Proiecting sign may be
. increased up to 18 sq. ft (may be double faced for a
total area of 36 so. ft.) if the sign and storefront meet
the following criteria: The floor to ceiling height of th
ground level floor is a minimum of 18 ft. and the sign
is vertically oroportioned.
The sign Fnay net be Illuminated.
Illumination is not Permitted, except as follows:
0 External illumination is Permitted orovided there
unless approved as a
are no more than two small si)ot lights of n
Tn6 story prdecting
sign according to the
more inan 2,000 lumens shining directly on the
sign and vrovided they meet the Light trespass
provisions.
Standards in Article 14AG,
0 Halo back4it illumination may be permitted
subect to api)roval by Design Review and to the
illumination provision for 2nd story signs
delineated below.
• If the sign is for a Hospitalltv-Odented Retail Use or
an indoor theater or bowling alley, the sign may be
i)laced on the 2nd story wall of a building sudect to
approval by Design Review. Illumination for a 2r-d
story sign will not be permitted ff there are existing
residential uses on the second floor of the building.
• The sign must be affixed to the building Wall OF tQ
pole that is FRounted on the b -ilding, so that the sign
is perpendicular to the building wall.
• The sign may not swing or be easily moved by wind.
A busiRess to install
wishlFig a pfejestiRg s gn FRus,
Show PF99f af "ab lity IRGLIFEIRG8.
SigR paFmils; Storefront Proiecting Signs are subject
to Design Review aoGonlinq to the pFoGedures
speGified in Ghaptei: 9 Gf this T' _.
Portable sign
6 sq. ft. per sign face.
May be double-faced for a
total area of 12 sq ft.
6 ft
Up to one non -illuminated portable sign is allowed
per storefront.
The sign must be placed on private property, or
within a designated sidewalk cafe area.
e The sign may not block access to any doorway.
9 The sign must be moved inside the business when
the business is closed.
. The sign must be weighted at the base to provide
stability as approved by the Building Official or
designee.
0 A maximum of 2 sign faces are allowed per sign.
Table SB-4: Sign Specifications and Provisions in the CIB-2, C13-5 and CB-10 Zones
Permitted Signs
Maximum Sign Area
Maximum Height
Provisions
Time &
25 sq. ft, per sign face.
Signs must not project more than 6 ft. into the public
Temperature signs
May
right-of-way
total —ea -1 - q.11.
Barber Poles
—
Maximum diameter: 9 inches
Maximum length: 3 ft
3 sq. ft. per sign face
Directlona! signs
May be double-faced for
total area of 6 sq. ft.
Identification &
2 sq. ft.
Up to one of these signs is allowed per building.
Integral signs
No permit is required,
One private flag may be displayed in conjunction with
arig a
publicilags.
[F
No permit is required.
Qu ck Ve Icle
Allowed for Quick Vehicle Servicing Uses.
Se vicing Signs
No permit is required.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
4;W111WRIL,
NORM MEMORANDUM
Date: March 14, 2014
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Riverfront Crossings District - Noise Regulations
After receiving a request from a citizen the Commission asked staff to incorporate provisions
from the Smart Code, relating to noise control, into the Riverfront Crossings District Form Based
Code. Upon further study of the issue staff has determined that using the Smart Code's method
of regulating by decibel level may not be a workable solution. The Noise Control provisions of
the City Code previously contained regulations based on maximum decibel levels. These
regulations were difficult to enforce and therefore were subsequently removed from the Code.
Rather than reconsidering regulations that rely on decibel levels, staff is exploring other more
enforceable options, such as requiring venting for commercial kitchens to go to the roof rather
than the side of the building. Such regulations would apply citywide rather than just the
Riverfront Crossings District. We will advise you as noise regulations are further developed.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 14, 2014
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan — Affordable Housing
At the February 6 meeting the Commission agreed to schedule time on your March 20 agenda
to discuss the possibility of amending the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to
include policies regarding affordable housing. This was in response a letter submitted by Sally
Scott (copy attached).
The Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan should be viewed in the context of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Central District Plan, which address the portion of Riverfront
Crossings located south of the Iowa Interstate Railway, and the Southwest District Plan, which
covers the portion of Riverfront Crossings that is located west of the Iowa River. These three
documents contain polices regarding housing that can be used to promote a mix of housing,
including affordable units in Riverfront Crossings (pertinent excerpts from each plan are
attached).
If the Commission feels it is necessary to include additional language in the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, staff suggests that the following be considered for insertion
on page 116, which outlines steps to implement the plan:
Affordable Housing: The Study Area has an opportunity to provide a mix of housing that
is both mixed -income and mixed -age. As plans for the area move forward, development
incentives (such as density bonuses) and policy options that require affordable housing
for City assisted projects within the district, should be considered.
If the Commission decides to amend the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan we
will schedule a public hearing for April 17.
January 28, 2014
To the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission:
We respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the following to
the Iowa City City Council: that the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan be amended to specify that in
the Riverfront Crossings District, 15% of all new residential units should be affordable to people
earning less than 80% of Area Median Income. By affordable we mean that a household can
pay housing costs (mortgage or rent, insurance and utilities) at 30% of their income or less. We
also request that when this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is approved, that the City
Council immediately appoint a task force composed of city officials, for -profit and nonprofit
housing developers, University of Iowa officials and community residents to determine specific
terms governing the new affordable housing: i.e., mix of rental and homeownership units,
inclusion of accessible elder housing, public/private funding mechanisms, etc.
We request this amendment because the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
adopted in January 2013 makes no mention of affordable housing outside of arts -related units in
the Gilbert Sub -District, which has the lowest number of total projected units of any sub -district
in the plan (92 out of a projected 2400 units). Since the adoption of the Master Plan, the
shortage of affordable housing in the Iowa City area has become increasingly
apparent. Currently, the average vacancy rate for apartments is below 1% and housing costs are
rising much faster than Incomes. Over 63% of renters are paying more than 30% of their income
on housing costs, which means they are "cost burdened". As a result, people are moving farther
from their places of work, which negatively impacts families, communities, and the
environment.
We encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to refer to the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update (adopted by City Council on May 14, 2013), which lists as a Housing Goal to "ensure a
mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types
(singles, families, retirees) and people of all incomes." (p.27). In addition, City Steps (2011-2015
Consolidated Plan) approved by City Council on December 14, 2009, makes a number of
recommendations (pp.58-61) to increase the supply of affordable housing in Iowa City, including
specifically recommending an ordinance that "could provide financial and other incentives to
developers in exchange for the provision of a percentage of housing units set aside for
households with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income." (p.58).
We appreciate your consideration of this request
Sincerely,
Satlyj. Scott
Sally J. Scott, Facilitator
Johnson County Affordable Homes Coalition
205 Black Springs Circle
Iowa City, IA 52246
WW W qw 49W qww I
z
CL
LU
U)
z
LU
x
ui
w
CL
2
0
0
cc 0 a- "o
CL) m o o
41 r- SM, tD =a) u
. "a L4
ca 0 to w m v
bi) 0 0
'Eb aw u 0 lu 0
0 48 ci C) .0 0
0. 0 0 tw
m GJ Z .0 V)
b 49 rm
2 w cq Ca r
0 t� CU " r- u .
ca ca
0 0 Cc -- 'Ei
V 'E" 0 w ca W u
-S r. = 0 0
cu 73 CU 0 —
-M aj 0 cd 402 4�
0 > m
w o E -u r.
0 w U CO
< a ca = to o V 0
ca u m
m Q CU F4 0
m bb 4'J 0
;s CU m
to 49 Q 0
0 0 0 412 0 o b -,
'a �: -*9 0 CL ry -0 to w
E M �o g 0 :j
o 0 ca u
"a Q 6 X co� Q) ca 0
cu M 0 u (D W r 0 0
M 6 0
.0 co r
"t� co 0:3 .4 a) 6 ou
w tko lu 0 0
:6 v
Ca .0 48 ul
E
48 > CU 0 w a to
b Qj 4) r m
V2 (D 43
Z u M w m 2:,
0
CU
w .0 46 bD
0
u tw a = g = r. .— cc u
t a)
> ba o CD :j (D t)a 42 m r
cu o W r ba
0
W -43 45 M
v cc
a) 4 cd
ho U� 0 r " w -6 aj
CD 0 x E 0 0
> 0 m
co (U P. -0 kb " A to
biD 0 0 m .�j 0 0
q -6 0 0 -M m Co E U
'.0 > j-, E —
P, CO m ou 0 0 C to cc
1 �: m 'o = - m lu o = w W 0 E 0
0 �: a) P. �: b 0 9� .0 0 .— 1 Pa cz
PCs 0 0 0 >4 Pa 0 = 0
Pal
4� r m "a tm '00 r 00
Co 0 - W M 49 bf 7a 0
M E u
L41
o
0 ob '5
4 v r as
bm mu 0 bio 0 0 0 a "
o = g 0 0 0
0 :6 pa �d u
IC, cc z �c
cu 0 0 (D >, 0 .—
.— �a 0) o r. 'R
-S bo 0 to
PC cu -0
0
w m M PC CU w
> aj w -G 0
(D cc M 4v r tm 0
0 aj m a -0 m E ps
ca r PEb
Pa o
'00 a a PC
PO CM
ho PC
a co w 0
m 49 :9 cc 0 = g. a
o B 0 ;s tb > cu w 46) cc ;8 m -M
— a w 0 PEI N -C; u
aj P!! E
pa A06
(U
pu PC 0 4UJ -0
lu r
-B B po
-r� 0 PC
U cc PE 'o
P�
Cu 4
.2 5
91 9
m o tb E a a wo z 11
0 0 . :a Q �o
t 6
x
J� 0 > W
E
to , , 0
= 0 C . 4
0 0
tg E E
9 0 CL E w
E 0 0
> a E E
0 u u
0 a E E
E <
o
0
u
go
Do
m -a =m cm
E JZ
0 0 0
o -ou-53:owww
m -Z a
-E E
I o
0 m -0 m
m m 0 a E
wm
CL w 0 w 0 m
R z 0 a
77 AW EVIL".
I g—M
vs am . . .
o bp
=0
be
. 0
e
F
0,
0
a
M
0
0
0
m lco
Aw W
Z W
a) bD L 2 w 4
cc
on 0 tv
0 r.
CD
cu
Z
0
r
0 ca
"I., — >
W Co co bJ3
0 0 CD 0 g
0 "a 0
g 0 0
ca
0 0 ca m
0 0
a., 0 a) 0 0 =
u
a) CL
,a aw a 0 0 co
bD
bID
bD cc ho E-
0 0
S R A( -0 = pw
r 0 0
CL us ml r
> .-
M 0 ho
"a CU bJD
0
0 bV 4)
u �m r
r M 0 1 a) 9 �3
x 3 cu "cl
0 (u 0 m a) 48 s
0 0
a
'a 45 Q)
'o > r 414 w 0
r ow 4S
0
0
'o Q�
> 0 0
0
'Ej
0 M ow
m pr 0
V
cc
0 W
r or. cu 4 0 M
co 0 r- r. 5 W 4e cu �o Q)
U bf) ho
> =
,a tio m w �o @D Q)
0 v g r.
0 r. "a 0 "a
g 0 — >, B 0 co
Ln ca
bD
V m
.0 tko v cu
-0 m > cuu m Q)
= ED
W ID.
CU (D 0 W 1- 0
r. , 0 = � Ce
0 4� 0 .- 0 E
lt� 's r. cu po
0 (U Ei r. cu > M CU 10
= 0 w m w A >
(u 0 o w �u 'o >� IE
0 0
.,u ow r.
cc 0. p
�s bD 0 ;J w 0 .0 Q 0 Q,
m 0 X 0 44 W U ti
u '49
tw 0 E S P B t 11
0 bO CD m > r. u m 0 49 49 w
u C) 0 W
9b w 0
M CU
0 u :2 o
m bo �j 0 u u 0 0 u Z r. E� 0
r - 0 U = CD u u , 0 0 0 u
42 W 0 = r. Co = E r.
r. tn m u cu w W 0 w m gl� W
0 U 0
0 .0 CU 0
;A � , M -0 .43 0 w w R m 2
CU r Cl. M
3: 5; .2 " M 0 3: W
a Ahk a dkk a a a a a dlk.& dh a ah A, a dk dhL AL dh ah AhL dkk dik dbk dh dhk dhk dik ghk m dbk dki
.9 4w W w 14W W,
z
S Y) c 0) 0
a m 4) 0 .0 E .2
CL m N o C
0 4)
Cc a 0 0
IL 0 4
E 'a m m 'a m v a
=,n CL a
o E 0 0
0 to 'a m = 4< 'o E
0 c bo w a)
C.) 2 mo C E 0
m > W -0 M I C
0 CL
(D (A 0) r- '43 .0 CL 0 0
LD -V CL
c a U) Cr r E 0
to 0 0 a W
a) 2 r bo CO W 4)
ca 4) CL c V U0 E - 0 a
0 CL cc 8 V a 0 o E lao w t-- >
4) m un 0 > 'a in m 4) E E E cc
0 CL Ca c
> = " CL 0 0 E CL 0 m :3 UD
E to 0 0 'P 0 0 CL c 0 .2 tb o m
uo E 0 to 0 M
0 0
C3 0 c 0 0 0 Ca 0 0 -6 > Cl.
a C .0 0 > 'D 0 t3
0 0 ? 'a = W w
0 m -E 0) 'D CL C -C 0 Cc
W SO 0 0
.0 CL 6
0 0 2
m 0
z 0 = m
(L -6 " 0 M CL
w !Lo m T 3: w 8 12 M
a -Z3 0 8L (a
a) 0 W S2 0 in
c U) .= c = a a 3: 4) to r- m 0
W -R 'a 0 0 0-0 .2 a c 0 0
0 0 () w
o m E a 0
0 Ca m V) c 4) Cr .2
0 :E a) =m 0 -�a 0 C Fo m 12 CL 0 'o 0)
a) " 0 E
Ca E 0 CL W 0 (D M
r
_ i I g� .2
m CL Q) Cts 0 0 m 0) 0 (D >
CL Cn M 0 > E 0 0 > M
4-r
LL w Ol E cL E 'r- Ca o CD 0
> a B c
0 .0 0 - (D a) Lu E a) Cl W 2 E -(-n IOD �(D
a j5 15 m > 2 a E 0 c
0 W r cc 0 E
7, 0 0 4) 0 0
m to LD a) W =
UG 8. E m E w Ma 'a E W V, 0 va
m fi . 0 a 0 m
E (n In a 00 m 0 Q 0 '40)
0 0 U) - > 3: m Ca -0 0 0 CL
E 2
U) in :c > 0 'a o , u) U 0 16 0 m w , cL
to m 'a ca 3: '4 5 Q M
(a .0 a) a U) r
0 - 4) C E. Q a)
CL Q o -T 0 cc U) -0 a CL . 0 CL
m 0 m 0 0 0 a) 0 L- M
Cl 8. 0 a) c M > a
CO '0 c 'Zn o cc 0 a) 'D 0 0
0 a) 0 o > 4q be 0 , ()
t 0 '- 0 I'L ME �j 'D M 0
o m c .0 -D m V)
e mm =0 CI- > 0 E
0 W 0 'a ir --.,c m 0 .0 E E 'm2' v
> 0 a 'a M a m 9) CL 0 M
U) �: 0 bn 0 w A m 3: - Co 0 CL
m 0 0 'a -0 0 cn o E co C r
Q 4) - C,) 0 M
E '0 o > (D 0 m Mn '0
a) > = a �:: a) - < 2 0 0 , Q
0 o 0 -0 a
.0 0 'a 2 Ca 0 0 m
e 0 W c 0 r CL m w 0 C C 0 4) Q
f u w B f -Uaf E �: M C = > E a) m o v)
CY a - a . .0 m 0 4) 2 a)
m cc 'R ,
CL 0
-0 CL 0 0 (A -r, o
0 m m CL CL C"L c 0 0
- = = 0 CL 0 a) 10 M 0
U)
S2 v CL Pw 1r: 0 m E
+ 0
gh 15 . -a , Ca
0 L .0 (D 0 .0 o m 0 E
M to Ca 0 a) �? t a)
CL 0 2 > c "m 5u)L mm COL E 0 0 x
w 2 m 0 CL E 0 > m
E CL Cl. to CL x 0 J.
CL
eL -a 2 1 m 0)
c 0 CL E E .2
> 0 0 2 0
s L'u IC C'n m cn w 0 3: 2
;p 0 0 2 46
�4
0 -0 (a .6 d -6 ei th z I oc od .6 (3 -6 6
0
0
Z L7 ez
6
io
00 , = - 8 0
m 0 V LZ C 0 w -
i5 0 o �vo
CO C 0 � 0 a E
5 z o v
a 0 0
05 CO) 0 1 'r, V M 0
UG 0 w 0 0 - = .-- 0
0 0 -8
w E 0
a M 0 'C m 0
- 4) w 0 0 =
c a t; 0 a
U) v 0 0 V) -
>.- 0 0 0 0 0
sb 0 -0 46 C > Z m 0
it 0
<
.0 a o 0:5 8 0 0 0
Z
cc
0
U)
a
0
cn o
0
0' 0 be 4� 0 0
E
C o CL 2 a -
� Z Cl t , w = z
0 .40'6 wo 0 Z 0 w 0
= 0 0 C w E 15 0 <
- -C 0 E
0 0 �'C 2 Z, a UWO M > m
0 0 s
> g
.2 -2
f3
'Sb E o
z q �s t m 0 C �
IL a o 0 0 0 0 0 0.-
0 m
M 0 m � -a 0
Ic
a 0 0
0
04
(Y)
LO
c
CL
CL 0
LN
Hwe
C,
c a .2
.1, A 1 1
1 6
0 le
CL M = E E
=O
CL 4) 0 'a > 0
(1)
4)
la > U
0 :2 2 m
"a
o a) 0 cr 0 uc Q)
a
M a 0 M -M a -@ U)
W E 0) E MU)
0 c (D 0
4� 0) (D M co 'a 2 �W 0
= o m Mo 0 CL
a) Lo Cc '0 m 0 c c a > 2 0
a) 0 CL 0 a
c E u) 4) 0 d) a) 0 0 0 ca a)
CL 0 0 c E OL bo
15 0 = *
c M
.5 a c
0 a Z, CL
(D
>
0 W 0) 0 0
cu m 0 0 (D CL 0)
4) 0 2 CD
U) 'a 41) L3 0 0 0 0
6 4) m ,b cl c cc) CCL CL
ca m M W m u
o 4) ci V) (D 4) 0 C
x 0 0 (D CL (D W
0 0 a) Co uo 0
0 E 0 a) 0 m ci
0 M c
0 4) E2 0 0
bo a) "Fn o a M 0 0 co Co
0 0 ca 0 M . a M— v a) ctl M . a a! a
= 0 0 10 0 E 0 - a = > bo C, c (a
a R E E o r a)
0 CL
CL I — 0 0 0 -0 a) (a CL mE r- W 0) a
0. 0 0 — tp = o a cc 0 'r �2 o m a W 0 co CL E
4" M 0 a) x iP 0 (D E 0 M o
0 M >
(n a) CL a a) a 0
E cO, E E 0) 4) W m co a)
m E 4) S U)
'a 0 m i�, 10 W
>
W V
E 0 0
'M a) W —ca C — Q -k Mo 4)
E V 0 >
a -0 s E oi c E a a -;,- 4) ca Q. .2 CL
m o E 4) a) 0 W d) E CL 4) a 2
> 0
r 0 o
CO 0 r UO m j 0 W CL 0
, 0 0 E 0 -5 0
Je 0) 0 -am —= a) m 0 0 0 M
ve 0
E to > 0
E 0 E Q) (D >
0
0 v
E ca Or 0 0 bo 'o m CL cc 2 Cc
0 0
a cc 3: o ca LD m 0) 4>1
(a COL E a =0 cc a=) —d) W -- 0 , 0
> — , Q)
U) 06 a a) E f 0
m 0 CD m E -0 Q) a) 'S "R r- 13 m �c CL -0 c CL
0 > 3t X 'D a 0 'i= 0 a) a) Q) Q)
cD OL Mu E e
m 0 E CL o 0 0
�O E ON o d) - d— > C
o +,6 o E
C CL 4) (D = ? 't-
46 = cc m m M o 0 M 'o - a) 0 -0
0 c, Q) a �t 3: > a c a) 'a 31: g
CL M t. 0 a) (D -0 N 'a m *r- CD a)
0 .0 a 'a 0 CL Ub
0 6 0 0 uo 2
mg 0 c 0 '0 =0 0 E 0 0
E cc L a) Cl cu M
> >
0 0 0 4) 2
E -6 E E e,
0 -0 2 'Fn 4) C.) 0 :2 0
cr) g -0 > 8 9 M 0
E
0 0 CL CU
Lu C� Lu o 2 m
M 0 il o M 0 W 4t: A- Lu LL, 0
C6 .6 (3 -6 (6
2�
C
(7 cr
FROM SOUTHWEST DISTRICT PLAN
Goals and Objectives for the Roosevelt Subarea
Following is a summary of the goals and objectives of the Roosevelt Subarea. These
are described in more detail in the previous sections and are illustrated on the
attached Roosevelt Subarea Plan Map.
Housing
It is a goal of the plan to stabilize existing single-family neighborhoods in the
Roosevelt Subarea in order provide the opportunity and encourage households of all
types to live close to the University and downtown Iowa City. In addition, the City
should encourage the development of high -quality multifamily housing in the
Roosevelt Subarea that is compatible wilih surrounding development to meet the
housing needs of a variety of households including singles, young families, university
students and elderly populations.
Following area number of recommended actions that will help to achieve these
goals:
Identify historic properties and encourage their preservation.
Avoid concentrations of high -density multifamily zoning directly adjacent to low -
density single-family zones; facilitate downzoning multifamily property where
appropriate.
Apply the Multifamily Residential Design Standards contained in Section 14-51-1-5N of
the City Code to the Roosevelt Subarea.
Review and make needed changes to the Multifamily Residential Design Standards
to ensure compatibility of new multifamily development with surrounding
development.
Encourage the University of Iowa to balance expansion needs with the community4s
goal to preserve existing neighborhoods.
Encourage the University to inform and coordinate with the City regarding any plans
to develop dormitories and other types of student housing. Student housing should
be located in areas that are suitable to meet the unique needs of university students
balanced with the goal to protect existing housing that is suitable for families, singles,
and older persons desiring to live close to the University and downtown Iowa City. To
this end, the City should take steps to develop and enforce appropriate zoning
regulation of university property.
Encourage rehabilitation of the existing housing stock in the Roosevelt Subarea,
particularly in the Miller -Orchard Neighborhood.
Commercial Areas
Develop a long range plan to guide future redevelopment along Riverside Drive.
Encourage development of well -designed mixed -use buildings that incorporate upper
floor apartments over commercial uses.
Southwest Distnct Plan
10/8/02 35
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
FEBRUARY 20 — 5:30 PM — INFORMAL
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin,
Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sarah Walz, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 PM.
Other
Discussion of revaluating the South District Plan, especially that area along Sycamore
Street near the proposed school site.
Freerks said they would take the agenda items out of order because Sarah Walz was
presenting information only on the last item.
Walz said that many interesting things are happening in the South District like Wetherby Park,
the edible forest, the public Community Gardens and two splash pads. She said that the area is
accessible to the shopping area along Highway 6 and employment areas and is not too far from
the university. She said the South District is also home to Napoleon Park, Sand Prairie Reserve,
home to the endangered painted box turtle, Terry Trueblood Park, the southern portion of the
Iowa River Corridor Trail, the Sycamore Greenway, soccer park, wastewater treatment plant,
and Friendly Farm — the only organic farm within Iowa City.
Walz said the Future Land Use Scenario shows higher density development in the way of future
townhouses along areas where there are arterial streets like S. Sycamore and S. Gilbert
Streets. She added that opportunities for multifamily housing are dependent on the extension of
S. Sycamore Street and several others. Walz showed a picture of the street pattern in the area
and said it's important to get east -west connections because there are now only two of them.
Walz said that the South District Plan is the first District Plan and was adopted in 1997, so it
may very well be time to revisit it and look at the landscape, where arterials are located and
where future opportunities exist for commercial, higher density development, and future parks.
Miklo added that when the South District Plan was developed, one of the things that came from
the public meetings was the lack of a unique environmental feature. He said it was suggested
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 - Informal
Page 2 of 5
that once the gravel pit was exhausted it would make a good park, and now with the Terry
Trueblood Recreation Area, there is a great park serving the district and the larger community.
He said at that time they also picked out some prospective locations for schools, and the Iowa
City Community School District has now chosen one of those sites. Miklo said these are
examples that the Plan has had value as this area as grown.
Walz said the street pattern is something that needs to be given careful attention, and it would
make the area more walkable and more accessible. She said that other things they would need
to be vigilant about is the way they plan for trees along the street and the separation between
the sidewalk and the street especially along that extension of Sycamore Street when the school
goes in. She said the area has a lot of assets that go unheralded.
Martin asked about the commercial zoning. Walz explained that there is no zoning yet because
some of these areas weren't part of the city until the recent annexation with the school. She said
there had been talk on the Commission about a neighborhood commercial zone, and she said
for that to be viable that east -west connection has to occur
In response to a question from Freerks, Miklo said there were two areas for which the City had
not yet adopted a district plan; the North Corridor and the Northwest District. He said the
Northeast District does have the Camp Cardinal Boulevard Master Plan for guidance.
Walz said the South District is also important because it's one of two districts within the city
limits that has the bulk of undeveloped land. She said much of the recent development has lots
that tend to be on the smaller end and very affordable for single family.
Eastham said the area around the Weber School on Rohret Road was developed almost
entirely as single family, and he would like to see the history of how that developed in order to
help as they plan for the South District. Miklo said he didn't think there was much variance
between what was planned for that area and what was actually built.
Dyer asked if the City bus system will extend to this area after it's developed. Walz said that is
always the plan with new subdivisions and rezonings, and the extension of bus service does
depend a lot on the density of development. She said having a school there will help as will the
east -west extension of McCollister Boulevard.
Dyer said she thinks the bus service is especially important for areas with multifamily housing
Code Item
Discussion of Riverfront Crossinas District Form -Based Zonina Code and related zoning
code amendments. (The form -based code is available for review at
hftp://www.icgov.org/riverfrontcrossings)
Discussion of proposed changes to parking requirements and alternatives to parking
minimums in the Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and the Riverfront
Crossings District and elimination of the Near Southside Parking Facility District and
associated parking impact fee.
Howard said this would be a continuation of the discussion from the previous meeting.
Freerks asked to have the wording clarified in the amendment concerning density standards for
fraternal group living. The amendment states... "Staff recommends that applications for new
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 - Informal
Page 3 of 5
fraternal living uses continue to be reviewed and approved by the Board of Adjustment but that
we return to the density allowed previously." Howard affirmed that what is meant is that they are
returning to the previous density only for the RM-44 and the PRIVI, not for the other zones.
Howard said the minimum parking requirements section has been newly revised, and she
explained what the changes are, including a , revised table outlining what the parking
requirements will be in Riverfront Crossings. She said an added revision is the Downtown and
Riverfront Crossings Parking District and information on how to qualify for this type of reduction,
which will entail a fee. She said there is also a change to the near South Side parking impact
fee to make fees paid to the City more commensurate with the actual cost to City to build a
structured parking space.
Howard clarified that a development could have a financial incentive from a Federal or State
program or from the City to qualify for a bonus height provision.
Howard explained that developments that qualify as affordable housing and exempt 30% of the
dwelling units from the parking requirements do not also have to pay a fee.
Howard said that the fees are intended to cover a portion of the construction cost of a structured
parking space but do not cover the operating costs, and residents will not be guaranteed a
parking space in a public parking facility.
Thomas said what he wanted to know is if there is a public subsidy to the operation of the
parking structures. Howard said there is always a public subsidy of the parking structures
downtown. Greenwood Hektoen explained that you can't charge for maintenance and a fee is
like this is what our tax dollars are for.
Howard emphasized that having a progressive policy of strategically placed public parking
facilities has helped downtown Iowa City maintain its buildings over time rather than seeing
buildings torn down to make room for surface parking lots.
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14: Zoning, changing the definition of
"eniargementlexpansion" so that for a nonconforming drinking establishment, an
alteration or addition to a commercial kitchen that does not result in an increase in the
allowable occupancy load will not be considered an enlargementlexpanslon of the use.
Mildo said the intention here is to emphasize the non-alcoholic aspect of the business and make
it easier for the restaurant.
Theobald asked about sidewalk cafes. Howard said the Code has a definition of a restaurant,
and there are many businesses downtown that do operate a full-scale restaurant, and they are
the ones that have the sidewalk cafes, but in the Zoning Code some of those restaurants also
qualified as a drinking establishment because sometimes they are open after midnight. She said
that something defined in the Code as a bar would not qualify for a sidewalk caf6.
ADJOURNMENT:
Eastham moved to adjourn the meeting.
Theobald seconded.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 20, 2014 - Informal
Page 4 of 5
A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0.
z
0
V5
0
z
z
E
z
5
9L
0
0
LLI
lz
LU
(L)
z
z
w
I--
L
A
c
u
0
xxxxxxxi
C'Ixxxxxxx
W
�
10
LU
I
xjxx
x
x
x
I,
7
Xlxxxxxlx
IT
1
cn
Z44
X:
I
x
x
x
x
xjx
'I
W)
C�4
x
x
x
ui
XIX
x
QXXXXXXXI
t:
�Xxlxxxx
ui
01
9
LLI
XX,xxx
LLI
0
i
oxxlxxxxl
LLI
0
1
W)
alxlxxxxx
LLI
0
I
LO
xxxxxxxi
IXXXX—XX
LLI
0
i
Go
�Xxxxxxx
iz
0
N
LU
x
x
x I
x
x
xi
U)
LU
cDlcolv)
rJoloo
in
(Y)
LU 9L
LOION
�5
to Lo
Lo LD
X
0
0
010
C
0
0
LU
1
LU
-i
LU
Lu
4, LU
= a
<101,Z,
I
OZ
<
Om (L I
= Id
0 I
a
a -7
0:
P
LU
a
- I-
ow (0)
LU
LU
I
P: m
to
11
wxl=o
<
2;2
w
<
z
<
W LL%
1 P
Pji:
C04
C4
xxx
xxxx
E2xxxlxx
N
x
Ix
1
CV)
x
Xlx
w
6)
xxx
I
N
�—Xxxxxxxll
0)
�Xxxxxxxl
�Xxxxxlxx
0
4
X
LU
6xx
.1
x
x
ql P
S I
x i lxxxx
I
1
I
x
x
AIXIIX
x
xix
i
x
x
U)i
uj
I
(01
CO I
(Y)
r�
LO
00
ce)
LU ZL-
Lf)
�B
LO
L�o
Lo
53
0
LO
�-XO-10000000�
LLI
z
LLI
LU
jj!g
<zw
z
0
410
CL
-)
z
2:
2
0
U
" I
<
-0-
4
LU
LU
M
Lu
2
N
4
ui
>-
U)
-Lu
CLLNWP�-�:
w
m
4
91
0-
LU
ZO
1
1
-0 C
(D 0
(x) E
w
53
C 0
a)
a)
0
2.0.0 0
(L < < z
11 11 11 11
XOLU
LU
�e
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRELIMINARY
FEBRUARY 20 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carolyn Dyer, Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Phoebe Martin,
Paula Swygard, Jodie Theobald, John Thomas
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Karen Howard, Sara Greenwood Hektoen
OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Welsh, Nancy Carlson, Bryan Vogel
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
The Commission voted 6-1 (Thomas opposed) to recommend approval of Riverfront
Crossings District Form -Based Zoning Code and related zoning code amendments.
2. The Commission voted 6-0 (Dyer absent) to recommend approval of the proposed
changes to the parking requirements and alternatives to parking minimums in the
Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings District
and elimination of the Near Southside Parking Facility District and associated
parking impact fee.
3. The Commission voted 6-0 (Dyer absent) to recommend approval of an amendment
to Title 14: Zoning, changing the definition of "enlargement/expansion" so that for a
nonconforming drinking establishment, an alteration or addition to a commercial
kitchen that does not result in an increase in the allowable occupancy load will not
be considered an enlargernerittexpansion of the use.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
There was none.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 2 of 11
Code Items
Discussion of Riverfront Crossinas District Form -Based Zoning Code and related zoning
code amendments. (The form -based code is available for review at
http://www.icgov.org/riverfrontcrossings)
Howard referred to the decision matrix that contains the final items the Commission wanted to
discuss at this meeting, which include building heights in Riverfront Crossings and accessibility.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Bob Welsh of 84 Penfro Drive said the Commission had the opportunity tonight to give the
message to the citizens of this community and beyond that we really want people to be front
door citizens. He gave an example of a friend who used a wheelchair who could not visit Welsh
in his house due to the front step. He said he hoped the Commission would ask staff to make
some modifications to assure front door accessibility for veterans, those with disabilities, and the
rapidly growing elder population. He would like to promote this community as a good place to
retire.
Nancy Carlson of 1002 E. Jefferson St. spoke of how one of the goals of the Master Plan is to
protect the views of the Old Capital Building, which she said is a symbol both for the university
and for the citizens of Iowa City. She gave Howard two pictures that were in the Press -Citizen in
January and said when she looks at those pictures she sees the Old Capital with two taller high-
rises lurking in the background. She said they are now talking about adding more fifteen story
buildings and one of the reasons is for affordable housing. Carlson said in the Master Plan it
talks about the cost per foot of high rises, and she thinks that the vast majority of working
people would not be able to afford that cost. She wants to know what happens when the City
subsidy ends after ten years. She would like to find other ways of offering affordable housing
without kicking people out of their homes in ten years.
Carlson offered several examples of people getting evicted from affordable housing in Iowa City.
She said the most likely people to get displaced by building affordable housing are the people at
the bottom of the economic scale. She listed some suggestions other cities had for addressing
the problem of affordable housing. She is convinced that building high rises for affordable
housing is not the best answer. She said the reality is that when Iowa City has attempted to up
zone, the repercussions have not been pleasant. She's concerned about what the City's
priorities are and what the best course of action is.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Freerks said she is inclined to approve what staff and the consultants have recommended and
see how it works. She said this is an optional code and nothing they can force anyone to use.
She said there has been a great deal of conversation, many meetings, much discussion with a
lot of people, and she thinks what has been created does reflect what the Plan says, and
parking will determine that. She said when it comes to south of downtown, that's really to
salvage what's left of the downtown that's so beautiful. She said they are to go upward in some
areas, and she thinks that south of downtown would be a good place for that to occur.
Miklo clarified that they anticipate that the City may initiate a rezoning for the south downtown,
so the code would not be optional, but the bonuses would be.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 3 of 11
Howard clarified that the maximum height for the zoning of this area south downtown is eight
stories with a step back after the fifth story to help reduce the building scale, so the only way to
get higher than eight stories is to go through the bonus provisions. She said the Central
Crossings area is a maximum of four stories with a step back after the third story. She said the
Park District and South Gilbert District and University District are a maximum of six stories with
a step back after the fourth story. She said on the west side of the river the maximum height is
four stories except along the Iowa River. Howard said she wanted to be clear that the taller
buildings apply to the discretionary bonus provisions at the end of the code and wanted this in
the record.
Howard addressed Carlson's question about affordable housing by saying that these are not
intended as the absolute or only ways to achieve public goals but as one means of trying to
achieve them. She said for affordable housing there would be an abundance of ways to achieve
it.
Freerks added that City staff is trying to make that happen in many ways
Thomas referred to #35 on the matrix by saying that their goal here is overall density and one
way of achieving that is building height. He said Iowa City's self-image is that it's a small town
with big city attractions, and that is relevant to the question of building height. He said it seems
to him that what they are looking at is the best way of increasing Iowa City's density. He said the
story of density and building height evolves over time and is not fixed in the moment.
Freerks said there has been so much discussion about trying to retain neighborhoods to the
north and east, and she doesn't see spreading density there any further than has already been
done. She said they have a finite piece of ground they are dealing with just south of downtown,
and this is where this kind of growth needs to occur. She said she isn't opposed to tall buildings,
but she doesn't think they will have lots of them. She said what they have here will work
because it's been well thought out and carefully constructed and if there turns out to be issues
with it, she's certainly not afraid to go back and revisit it at any time.
Thomas said he thinks midrises can achieve the desired densities.
Freerks said she thinks that's what this plan will do with a few exceptions.
Thomas said staffs comments in #36 say that they are opposed to the idea of having an
allowance for two buildings exceeding the maximum building height. He said he found
something in Berkeley's zoning code that actually puts a limit on the number of buildings over
eight or nine stories.
Freerks said she thinks it will limit itself with parking, and she prefers to do it that way instead of
the first two people to the gate and then it's done.
Freerks asked if there were four Commissioners who wanted to change #36. There were only
two, Eastham and Thomas. The change to #36 failed.
Freerks said #37 is the university area with two stories minimum and seven stories maximum
and two bonus stories, with staff recommending against making any changes in the university
height standards. She said one of the reasons is that the City has no control over land owned or
developed by the university.
Thomas said he is proposing an increase of one story, from six to seven, in the base height
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 4 of 11
Freerks asked if there were four Commissioners who wanted to make this change. There was
one, Thomas, and the change to #37 failed.
Thomas withdrew his proposed changes to #38. He said he is not clear on the idea that the
change to the allowable bonus height would preclude the City from granting full transfer of
development rights.
Howard explained the concept by using the example that a piece of property has a base height
of four stories. She said someone could tear down a historic property and build a four story
building. She said if they can't transfer the full four stories to another property there's no
incentive to do it. She reminded the Commission that this is just one kind of tool that can be
used.
Freerks said on #39 Thomas had suggested making the maximum three stories with one bonus
story and no bonus where adjacent to existing single family residential. She said staff
recommends against this change other than disallowing bonus heights for properties adjacent to
single family neighborhood. Thomas said he would withdraw this one because the Master Plan
said it's highly unlikely that the development along the east side of the northern end of Gilbert
Street would be redeveloped.
Freerks said on #40 Thomas suggested a change of two stories minimum, six stories maximum
and four bonus stories in the Park area, while staff recommends against changing the allowable
bonus height.
Thomas said he assumed the Master Plan was trying to tie all the variables together in terms of
how these lands would be developed with respect to parking and urban form, etc. He said if you
add up all the development in that plan it's five million square feet. He said the consultant
recommended that, and they could have in their own analysis said it could up to fifteen stories,
so they chose ten. Thomas said he isn't willing to say it could be higher without some
understanding of how that could be the case.
Eastham asked if it was true that in the Park District a developer would have to have nine bonus
points to get up to fifteen stories. Howard said it would be a lot of public benefit they would be
providing to get up to fifteen stories.
There was one Commissioner, Thomas, supporting the change to #40, so the change failed.
Freerks said in #41 Thomas suggested for the West Riverfront four stories maximum, one
bonus story, three story maximum if fronting Orchard Street, and Iowa River edge should have
six story maximum, and two bonus stories. She said staff recommends changing the base
height along the river from 10 to eight stories and allowing the option to grant significant bonus
height, and as stated previously, staff recommends additional standards that will ensure that
riverfront areas are open and accessible to public, and staff would also support a separation
requirement between buildings that exceed five stories, perhaps something between fifty and
one -hundred feet.
Thomas said this is the area where is has the most concern about developing taller buildings.
He said he thinks the separation between buildings is appropriate. He said it would depend on
the height of the building as to what that separatioo needs to be.
Martin said what the staff has recommended seems to make sense.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 5 of 11
Eastharn said he's not keen on having buildings higher than eight stories on the West Riverfront
Crossings area. He said he doesn't think that's an appropriate place to put them.
Swygard said she would agree with that and wonders what significant bonus height means.
Howard said staff was leaving that for the Commission to discuss. Freerks suggested that they
go to twelve maximum rather than fifteen. Eastharn said he is struggling with what the public
benefits will be. Howard said in this case one thing that would be the benefit would be the
transfer of development rights for granting open space.
Martin asked if they didn't do any bonus points could a developer make something short and
squat that takes up the whole space. Howard said along the river they could go up to eight
stories and the building has to have some frontage to guarantee access to the river.
Freerks said at six stories you can't see the river so it's up to the Commission to decide how you
best break into that.
Eastham said an eight story building in the West Riverfront corridor is as high a building as he'd
like to see there.
Thomas and Eastham said they would like to see six stories as the base height along the river
with two bonus stores. The other four Commissioners agreed to the option of choosing staffs
recommendation with changing the base height to eight stories and Freerk's suggestion of no
more than twelve stories and staffs ideas for separation requirements. The Commissioners
agreed that buildings exceeding five stories should be separated by the height of the taller
building.
Freerks continued with #29 on the matrix, which said that 100% of the housing units within
Riverfront Crossings District should be totally accessible. Staff does not recommend making
accessibility mandatory for all residential units within the district and recommends relying on
ADA requirements and the Building Code to determine which buildings must have accessible
entrances and features.
Howard said the only building types in Riverfront Crossings that wouldn't be required to be
accessible would be townhouse type units and the cottages, which will be limited.
Eastham said the frontage requirements require the building to be at least eighteen inches
above the street level. Howard said the Building Code is going to require these buildings to be
accessible, so if there is some reason that they can't be made accessible, a provision allows
them to waive the eighteen inch requirement. She said the City has interpreted the accessibility
to apply to the front entrance on all buildings except townhouse type units and single family.
Eastham said so then there is no requirement that those two kinds of buildings have
accessibility from the front. Howard said there is no requirement that you have to make those
accessible from the front, but there is the flexibility in the code to do that if someone wants to
build a single family and make it accessible from the front.
Howard suggested changing the language on page 94 from "where accessibility standards
required by the ADA cannot be met," to read "required or if there's a desire to have the building
accessible."
There was only one Commissioner, Eastham, who was interested in making 100% of the
housing units within Riverfront Crossings District totally accessible,
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 6 of 11
Thomas suggested that staff look into best practices and see if there are other cities that have
elected to raise the bar. He asked if what is being proposed in the code is consistent with best
practices. Howard said if there are enough people interested, they can invite someone from the
Building Department to speak on that at another meeting. She said she believes that the City
and the way the Building Code has been interpreted is above and beyond the way some cities
have interpreted it. Freerks asked Howard to investigate and present the results at a future
meeting.
A majority of Commissioners agreed that they would like the language changed on page 94 as
noted above in the minutes.
Freerks said that #42 was suggested by staff to correct confusing language in the side set back
requirements by deleting the "if abutting adjacent building" and also include a provision in the
side set back requirements for mixed used buildings such that residential floors above the third
story must be set back a minimum of ten feet from side lot line.
A majority of Commissioners agreed with this change.
Martin moved to recommend approval Riverfront Crossings District Form -Based Zoning
Code and related zoning code amendments.
Theolbald seconded.
Eastharn said he thinks this is a very imperfect approach to what they are trying to do. He said
he thinks the allowance for taller buildings in the West Riverfront Area is not appropriate to the
use of that area and the views that are going to exist there from the west. He said he thinks it
doesn't provide adequate and appropriate respect for the people who are still living in the Miller -
Orchard area. He said he also has some moral qualms about not making the frontage of
buildings accessible for everyone, especially in this area where a large number of seniors are
expected to live. He said it's a fairly simple thing to do, and he is disappointed that the
Commission is not recommending to Council that all buildings have access from the front, which
conflicts with the Commission's philosophy of making as many homes in the community
accessible and available to as many people as possible. He said he appreciates Thomas'
comment that the Commission should continue to look at that accessibility issue.
Eastharn said as to the building heights he thinks Thomas has done a great job leading the
Commission through what the building heights actually mean in this area and downtown. He
said he hoped the Commissioner would have the opportunity to correct any errors as they go
forward. He said this is a great development opportunity for the community but he thinks there
are a couple things that need to be paid more attention.
Thomas said he thinks the form -based code is a real step forward for Iowa City. He said he
thinks the questions of development in this town have been hard on Iowa City and it relates to
form and density. He said the neighborhoods in the Central District have been hammered over
the last sixty years by questions of density. He said the Historic Preservation Commission is
passionate about their work because they see how badly the city has been damaged. He said
that is the reason he took such a literal view of this plan, because it was an attempt to
understand all the variables that go into deciding the size of a building. He said he hopes there
is more public discussion and that City Council considers this very carefully. He said once you
build a building, it's done.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 7 of 11
Theobald said this discussion helped her begin to see the tall dormitories and see how that
area, with the proper landscaping, could be a lovely area. She said she sees her young friends
who want to move to Iowa City living in this area and being a wonderful opportunity for them.
She said she thinks it's going to be a wonderful neighborhood.
Swygard said as someone who lives close to the West Riverfront she is excited about the
potential changes that come with this redevelopment. She said she thinks that the current
transient nature of some of the businesses along Riverside Drive negatively affects that part of
town. She said she hopes there is some quality development. She said there is an art to doing
this as far as building heights go, and so her hope is that they won't place a twelve -story
building amongst the one-story businesses without also having other redevelopment around
that. She hopes it will be a positive change in that it will open some of the views of the river that
we currently don't see.
Martin said she's very excited about the entire plan. She said she knows that they can't make
everyone happy but she does feel that they have done a lot to make sure that they have
addressed concerns and given thought to the community issues. She said she has a very
positive feeling toward what's happening.
Freerks said she's excited about this and thinks it will be a positive tool to move forward in an
area that can use some redevelopment in many places. She said over the years she has seen
some of the quaint homes taken out and some mismatched things have occurred there for lack
of focus. She said what she sees is a way for the community to create something in this area
that will flow quite well and something embraced by the people in Iowa City but also people from
other areas who will come here. She said when people come here they perhaps look for
something a bit different. She said hopefully this takes some of the pressure off those areas that
we love and want to keep and cherish and that includes the downtown, which lacks protection in
many areas. She said in the future that's something she would like to address. She said she
thinks this will be a positive. She said it's not perfect but she thinks they got it quite focused on
what might allow people to use incentives and she hopes people will use and embrace it and
that there will be many buildings that will have public benefit.
Dyer said she has been excited about this project since she first learned about it. She said she
thinks they have reached some good compromises. She said she hopes they can communicate
community support for developers to see the bonuses that provide workforce housing and
accessibility - that's one of the things that needs to be in the forefront of peoples' minds as the
community ages in population and attracts retirees. She said overall she thinks they have done
a good job and she's quite happy with the results.
The Commissioners said they appreciate all the effort and hard work that went into this.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-1 (Thomas opposed).
Freerks called for a five minute break and Dyer left the meeting.
Freerks called the meeting back to order.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 8 of 11
Discussion of proposed changes to parking requirements and alternatives to parking
minimums in the Zoning Code that would apply in Downtown and the Riverfront
Crossings District and elimination of the Near Southside Parking Facility District and
associated parking impact fee.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Freerks closed public discussion.
Thomas moved to recommend approval of the proposed changes to the parking
requirements and alternatives to parking minimums in the Zoning Code that would apply
in Downtown and the Riverfront Crossings District and elimination of the Near Southside
Parking Facility District and associated parking impact fee.
Eastharn seconded.
Thomas said he is basically in support of the proposed changes. He said one thing he would
encourage is the question of on -street parking. He said he thinks much of the street parking in
Riverfront Crossings is unregulated and given how parking is such a critical issue in terms of the
development of this area he thinks it's time to start looking at how that on -street parking is
regulated so they can maximize the efficiency of it.
Eastharn said he thinks it's a good point to pursue.
Thomas added that if they can get additional benefit out of that it could be put back into the
public benefits. He said if there were a parking benefit district, for example, those revenues
raised could be used toward improving Riverfront Crossings, either from the meter collections or
permits or whatever the process. He said it seems like a valuable resource and should at least
be evaluated.
Freerks said this seems like a good place to start, and hopefully it will be something that serves
this area well.
Theobald said there are no bicycle parking requirements and wanted to know if expanding those
to all areas has been looked at. Howard said this does have bicycle parking requirements for
commercial uses whereas downtown there are none. She said they tried to put something new
in to make sure that the bicycle parking was accommodated. She said for commercial uses the
bicycle parking has always been based on a percentage of the commercial vehicle parking so
downtown drops to zero although there's a huge demand for bicycle parking. She said they tried
to address some of those issues in Riverfront Crossings.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Discussion of an amendment to Title 14: Zoning, changing the definition of
Ilenlargernentlexpansion" so that for a nonconforming drinking establishment, an
alteration or addition to a commercial kitchen that does not result in an increase in the
allowable occupancy load will not be considered an enlargementlexpanslon of the use.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 9 of 11
Howard said this is a small change to the definition of "enlargement" because most of the
drinking establishments downtown are nonconforming because they aren't spaced 500 feet
apart so it doesn't allow any expansion at all. She said this would allow someone to make
changes to a kitchen to make it a better business but would not allow the expansion of the
actual drinking establishment occupancy.
Freerks opened public discussion.
Bryan Vogel, owner of The Clinton Street Social Club, said he has a difficult kitchen and has a
hard time keeping qualified, talented kitchen professionals because of the physical restrictions.
He said the only way he can better the ratio of food to alcohol sales is to expand the kitchen,
which he feels is no violation of the goals of the liquor legislation.
Freerks closed public discussion
Eastham disclosed that his son works as a bartender at The Clinton Street Social Club, but he
said that would not influence his vote.
Eastham moved to recommend approval of an amendment to Title 14: Zoning, changing
the definition of "enlargementfexpansion" so that for a nonconforming drinking
establishment, an alteration or addition to a commercial kitchen that does not result in an
increase in the allowable occupancy load will not be considered an
enlargementfexpanslon of the use.
Swygard seconded.
Freerks said these are the types of things the Commission does when there proves to be
unforeseen glitches in Code changes to address momentous problems. She said this is an
instance of stepping back and seeing what needs to be tweaked. She said they should clearly
encourage dining in downtown, and because there will be no change in occupancy load there
will not be any issue created here.
Eastham said he thinks it's a very sensible thing to do and he appreciates the staffs work to
make this timely amendment to the Code.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 13 and February 6, 2014
Eastham moved approval of minutes with minor correction.
Swygard seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Other
Discussion of revaluating the South District Plan, especially that area along Sycamore
Street near the pronosed school site.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 6, 2014 - Formal
Page 10 of 11
Freerks opened public discussion.
Freerks closed public discussion.
The Commission agreed that this item is worthy of staff's time. Freerks said she thinks with not
a huge time commitment some thoughtful and specific things can be conceived to create a more
solid future for the area around this and do something like what they have done in other areas.
She said she hopes City Council will allow staff to put that on its "to do" list for this year.
Eastham said in terms of the neighborhood commercial areas, he is interested in trying to put
some standards into the Plan that would allow or require something a good deal different for a
convenience store/gas station.
Freerks said this is a wonderful part of town with a lot to offer and she thinks it's worth the time
to look into the details.
Swygard agreed, especially in light of the school going into that area and that development will
probably happen fairly quickly.
Thomas said we are investing in tne scnool ancl tne public intrastructure to trie tune of millions
of dollars. He said as a designer one of his concerns is how you integrate all these housing
types, and he hopes they can develop a plan that would have higher densities, would
incorporate multifamily, and would be walkable. He said the question of raising densities in
multifamily areas worries some people, so it's a challenge to integrate affordable multifamily
with single family, and he hopes that process can achieve that goal.
Martin said she thinks it's important to keep in mind the amenities in that area that go
unheralded and making sure that they remain accessible. She said sometimes if there isn't
another look at it, if too much time passes, we can forget that we need to take care of those
things.
Theobald said the integration between the development and the wetlands is important. She said
she thinks the area is a real treasure, and there are a lot of different environments that are
typical of the Iowa prairie.
Eastham moved that the Commission send a letter to City Council requesting further
development of the South District Plan.
Thoobald seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
Adjournment
Eastham moved to adjourn.
Thomas seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion carried 6-0.
z
0
ro
0
z
2
0
N
z
E
z
IL
0
0
LU
w
LLI
C.)
z
4
93
z
LU
CD
z
LU
LU
lz
0
LL
C'
cm
Ixxxxxxxl
C4
x
x
X�Hx
x
x
1.
W
LU
I
0
XIXXX
XIX
i
x
x
x
XIX
X'X
I
a)
izj
X
X
X
X
X
I
ix
!Q
C4
X
X
x
Ld
I
o
x
X�x
xxxxxxx.
X
x
LLJ
—XXXX
0
LLI
xr
Lulxx
x
1
x
xw
0
Xxxx
11
mo
LU
xxxxxxi
lXXXXXXXI
'Xxxx
co
w
I
olxlxl
1
'xxxxxx
x
Q—Xxxxlxx
wol
LU
I
U)
2 W
w
w
m
I--
LO
W
Loco
w 5
LU IL
1-
Lr)
�-5
Z-6
-1
Lo
-1
Lo
-1
Lo
-1
LO
-1
LO
I-X00000000
w
Lu
::i
ui
w
—
Z
W
z
M
:)Io
0
Z
LL,
OUZOCL
4c
X
(L
d
-j
om
-)
F=
w
<
LU
LLI
0
0
z
M
<>-<lx<
Lu
U)
w
LU
0
z
0
LU
LL
M
U) ��-
=x
P
LU
w
0
U-
z
��!Xxx�xxxx
cn i
qxxxxxxxj
x
x
t
zx
x
x
w
I
0
x
t!
!E�lxxxxxxxll
'XXXXXXXI
�Xxxxx.ixx
X
X
w
—oix
x
x
x
:!Exxxxx,lxx
m LU
w
LO
CO
UJ 0.
X
LO
C�
Ln
0
V)
0
0
0
C>
0
Lo
o
w
Z
>-
<
z
M
JXZLU<oz
0
a.
-.2
X
m
10
0
:f
<
uf
X
ddo)
-j
r-
LU
d�-
<
w
LU
z
0
0
WW
Luo
<>'MM
z
Qlw
w
Zim
F-
�-
�
E
x CO
4D
(D 0
a) a)
co M
T.Q.0 0
< < Z
x o LIU
0
LU
�d